Having this simple example:
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <thread> // std::thread, std::this_thread::sleep_for
#include <chrono> // std::chrono::seconds
void new_thread(int n) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(n));
std::cout << "New thread - exiting!\n";
}
int main() {
std::thread (new_thread, 5).detach();
std::cout << "Main thread - exiting!\n";
return 0;
}
Is it possible for the new_thread not to be automatically terminated by the main thread and to do it's work - outputs New thread - exiting! after 5 secs?
I'm NOT mean the case of join when the main thread waits for a child, but for the main thread to detach the spawned thread and terminates leaving the new thread doing it's work?
Calling detach on a thread means that you don't care about what the thread does any more. If that thread doesn't finish executing before the program ends (when main returns), then you won't see its effects.
However, if the calling thread is around long enough for the detached thread to complete, then you will see the output. Demo.
[basic.start.main]/5 A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main function (destroying any objects with automatic storage duration) and calling std::exit with the return value as the argument. If control flows off the end of the compound-statement of main, the effect is equivalent to a return with operand 0.
[support.start.term]/9
[[noreturn]] void exit(int status);
Effects:
...
Finally, control is returned to the host environment.
You seem to expect that when main returns, the program waits for all threads to finish - in effect, implicitly joins all detached threads. That's not what happens - instead, the program terminates, and the operating system cleans up resources allocated to the process (including any threads).
detach separates your thread from the main thread. You want to use join()
Separates the thread of execution from the thread object, allowing
execution to continue independently. Any allocated resources will be
freed once the thread exits.
After calling detach *this no longer owns any thread.
From ref
Related
I just read the doc about std::thread.detach() in C++11.
Here is my test:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
static int counter = 0;
void func()
{
while (true) {
std::cout<<"running..."<<std::endl;
std::cout<<counter++<<std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
}
}
int main()
{
{
std::thread t(func);
t.detach();
} // t is released after this line
// t has died, so who is holding the resources of the detached thread???
std::cin.get();
return 0;
}
This code works as expected. So it seems that the thread can keep running even if its destructor has been invoked. Is this true?
If it's true, who on earth holds the resources of the thread after the object t is released? Is there some mechanism to hold the resources, for example, a hidden anonymous object?
In C++, std::thread does not manage the thread of execution itself. C++ does not have controls for managing the thread of execution at all.
std::thread manages the thread handle - the identifier of a thread (thread_t in Posix world, which was largely a model for std::thread). Such identifier is used to communicate (as in control) with the thread, but in C++, the only standard way of communication would be to join the thread (which is simply waiting for thread's completion) or detaching from it.
When std::thread destructor is called, the thread handle is also destructed, and no further controlling of the thread is possible. But the thread of execution itself remains and continues being managed by implementation (or, more precisely, operation system).
Please note, for non-detached threads std::threads destructors throws an exception if the thread has not been joined. This is simply a safeguard against developers accidentally loosing the thread handle when they didn't intend to.
You are correct that the thread keeps running if detached after the thread's destructor.
No one on earth hold the resources (unless you make arrangements for someone to). However when your application exits, the application shutdown process will end the thread.
One can still arrange to communicate with and "wait" for a detached thread. In essence, join() is a convenience API so that you don't have to do something like this:
#include <atomic>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
static int counter = 0;
std::atomic<bool> time_to_quit{false};
std::atomic<bool> has_quit{false};
void func()
{
while (!time_to_quit) {
std::cout<<"running..."<<std::endl;
std::cout<<counter++<<std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
}
has_quit = true;
}
int main()
{
{
std::thread t(func);
t.detach();
} // t is released after this line
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(3s);
time_to_quit = true;
while (!has_quit)
;
std::cout << "orderly shutdown\n";
}
Threads of executions exist independently from the thread objects that you use to manage them in C++. When you detach a thread object, the thread of execution continues running, but the implementation (usually in combination with the Operating System) is responsible for it.
While learning basic thread management, I found difficulty in understanding these lines (in bold) from a book.
Once you’ve started your thread, you need to explicitly decide whether
to wait for it to finish (by joining with it—see section 2.1.2) or
leave it to run on its own (by detaching it—see section 2.1.3). If you
don’t decide before the std::thread object is destroyed, then your
program is terminated (the std::thread destructor calls
std::terminate()). It’s therefore imperative that you ensure that the
thread is correctly joined or detached, even in the presence of
exceptions. See section 2.1.3 for a technique to handle this scenario.
Note that you only have to make this decision before the std::thread
object is destroyed—the thread itself may well have finished long
before you join with it or detach it, and if you detach it, then the
thread may continue running long after the std::thread object is
destroyed.
When does a thread run even after the thread object is destroyed? Anyone have sample code or any reference?
What this means is that the lifetime of the thread is not associated with the lifetime of the thread object.
So the following code:
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
{ //scope the thread object
std::thread thr = std::thread([]() {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
std::cout << "Thread stuff\r\n";
});
thr.detach();
} //thr is destroyed here
std::cout << "thr destroyed, start sleep\r\n";
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(10));
std::cout << "sleep over\r\n";
}
Will output:
thr destroyed, start sleep
Thread stuff
sleep over
Sometime I have to use std::thread to speed up my application. I also know join() waits until a thread completes. This is easy to understand, but what's the difference between calling detach() and not calling it?
I thought that without detach(), the thread's method will work using a thread independently.
Not detaching:
void Someclass::Somefunction() {
//...
std::thread t([ ] {
printf("thread called without detach");
});
//some code here
}
Calling with detaching:
void Someclass::Somefunction() {
//...
std::thread t([ ] {
printf("thread called with detach");
});
t.detach();
//some code here
}
In the destructor of std::thread, std::terminate is called if:
the thread was not joined (with t.join())
and was not detached either (with t.detach())
Thus, you should always either join or detach a thread before the flows of execution reaches the destructor.
When a program terminates (ie, main returns) the remaining detached threads executing in the background are not waited upon; instead their execution is suspended and their thread-local objects destructed.
Crucially, this means that the stack of those threads is not unwound and thus some destructors are not executed. Depending on the actions those destructors were supposed to undertake, this might be as bad a situation as if the program had crashed or had been killed. Hopefully the OS will release the locks on files, etc... but you could have corrupted shared memory, half-written files, and the like.
So, should you use join or detach ?
Use join
Unless you need to have more flexibility AND are willing to provide a synchronization mechanism to wait for the thread completion on your own, in which case you may use detach
You should call detach if you're not going to wait for the thread to complete with join but the thread instead will just keep running until it's done and then terminate without having the spawner thread waiting for it specifically; e.g.
std::thread(func).detach(); // It's done when it's done
detach basically will release the resources needed to be able to implement join.
It is a fatal error if a thread object ends its life and neither join nor detach has been called; in this case terminate is invoked.
This answer is aimed at answering question in the title, rather than explaining the difference between join and detach. So when should std::thread::detach be used?
In properly maintained C++ code std::thread::detach should not be used at all. Programmer must ensure that all the created threads gracefully exit releasing all the acquired resources and performing other necessary cleanup actions. This implies that giving up ownership of threads by invoking detach is not an option and therefore join should be used in all scenarios.
However some applications rely on old and often not well designed and supported APIs that may contain indefinitely blocking functions. Moving invocations of these functions into a dedicated thread to avoid blocking other stuff is a common practice. There is no way to make such a thread to exit gracefully so use of join will just lead to primary thread blocking. That's a situation when using detach would be a less evil alternative to, say, allocating thread object with dynamic storage duration and then purposely leaking it.
#include <LegacyApi.hpp>
#include <thread>
auto LegacyApiThreadEntry(void)
{
auto result{NastyBlockingFunction()};
// do something...
}
int main()
{
::std::thread legacy_api_thread{&LegacyApiThreadEntry};
// do something...
legacy_api_thread.detach();
return 0;
}
When you detach thread it means that you don't have to join() it before exiting main().
Thread library will actually wait for each such thread below-main, but you should not care about it.
detach() is mainly useful when you have a task that has to be done in background, but you don't care about its execution. This is usually a case for some libraries. They may silently create a background worker thread and detach it so you won't even notice it.
According to cppreference.com:
Separates the thread of execution from the thread object, allowing
execution to continue independently. Any allocated resources will be
freed once the thread exits.
After calling detach *this no longer owns any thread.
For example:
std::thread my_thread([&](){XXXX});
my_thread.detach();
Notice the local variable: my_thread, while the lifetime of my_thread is over, the destructor of std::thread will be called, and std::terminate() will be called within the destructor.
But if you use detach(), you should not use my_thread anymore, even if the lifetime of my_thread is over, nothing will happen to the new thread.
Maybe it is good idea to iterate what was mentioned in one of the answers above: When the main function is finished and main thread is closing, all spawn threads either will be terminated or suspended. So, if you are relying on detach to have a background thread continue running after the main thread is shutdown, you are in for a surprise. To see the effect try the following. If you uncomment the last sleep call, then the output file will be created and written to fine. Otherwise not:
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <array>
#include <chrono>
using Ms = std::chrono::milliseconds;
std::once_flag oflag;
std::mutex mx;
std::mutex printMx;
int globalCount{};
std::ofstream *logfile;
void do_one_time_task() {
//printMx.lock();
//std::cout<<"I am in thread with thread id: "<< std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
//printMx.unlock();
std::call_once(oflag, [&]() {
// std::cout << "Called once by thread: " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
// std::cout<<"Initialized globalCount to 3\n";
globalCount = 3;
logfile = new std::ofstream("testlog.txt");
//logfile.open("testlog.txt");
});
std::this_thread::sleep_for(Ms(100));
// some more here
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i){
mx.lock();
++globalCount;
*logfile << "thread: "<< std::this_thread::get_id() <<", globalCount = " << globalCount << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(Ms(50));
mx.unlock();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(Ms(2));
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(Ms(2000));
std::call_once(oflag, [&]() {
//std::cout << "Called once by thread: " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
//std::cout << "closing logfile:\n";
logfile->close();
});
}
int main()
{
std::array<std::thread, 5> thArray;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
thArray[i] = std::thread(do_one_time_task);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
thArray[i].detach();
//std::this_thread::sleep_for(Ms(5000));
std::cout << "Main: globalCount = " << globalCount << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The program below will end up failing with a message regarding abort() being called.
I'm starting a thread that simple prints to cout. If I use std::this_thread::sleep_for(), I get the error. If I remove this, I get the error. If I call join() on the thread, everything works fine.
Shouldn't the thread have terminated long before the 1000 ms delay was up? Why is this causing an error? I can't believe calling join() is a requirement for a thread.
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
class ThreadTest
{
public:
ThreadTest() : _t{ &ThreadTest::Run, this } {}
void Wait() { _t.join(); }
private:
void Run(){
std::cout << "In thread" << std::endl;
}
std::thread _t;
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
ThreadTest tt;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
// tt.Wait();
return 0;
}
According to cppreference on thread class destructor :
~thread(): Destroys the thread object. If *this still has an associated running thread (i.e. joinable() == true), std::terminate() is called.
And joinable() :
[...] A thread that has finished executing code, but has not yet been joined is still considered an active thread of execution and is therefore joinable.
So you have to call join() explicitely before your thread variable is automatically destroyed or use the detach() member function.
Check cppreference's std::thread page.
A thread that has finished executing code, but has not yet been joined is still considered an active thread of execution and is therefore joinable.
[the destructor] Destroys the thread object. If *this still has an associated running thread (i.e. joinable() == true), std::terminate() is called.
To get the behavior you want, you'd need to call _t.detach() before exiting from main:
[detach()] Separates the thread of execution from the thread object, allowing execution to continue independently. Any allocated resources will be freed once the thread exits.
After calling detach *this no longer owns any thread.
The following code ends with a segmentation fault on the first call to pthread_cancel but only under linux. Under Mac OS it runs fine. Am I not allowed to call pthread_cancel on a thread that has finished running? Maybe I should not call pthread_cancel at all?
#include <iostream>
#include <pthread.h>
using namespace std;
void* run(void *args) {
cerr << "Hallo, Running" << endl;
}
int main() {
int n = 100;
pthread_t* pool = new pthread_t[n];
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
pthread_t tmp;
pthread_create(&tmp,NULL,&run,NULL);
pool[i] = (tmp);
}
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
pthread_join(pool[i],0);
}
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
pthread_cancel(pool[i]);
}
}
See POSIX XSH 2.9.2:
Although implementations may have thread IDs that are unique in a system, applications should only assume that thread IDs are usable and unique within a single process. The effect of calling any of the functions defined in this volume of POSIX.1-2008 and passing as an argument the thread ID of a thread from another process is unspecified. The lifetime of a thread ID ends after the thread terminates if it was created with the detachstate attribute set to PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED or if pthread_detach() or pthread_join() has been called for that thread. A conforming implementation is free to reuse a thread ID after its lifetime has ended. If an application attempts to use a thread ID whose lifetime has ended, the behavior is undefined.
If a thread is detached, its thread ID is invalid for use as an argument in a call to pthread_detach() or pthread_join().
You may not use a pthread_t after the thread it refers to has been joined, or if the thread has terminated while detached. Simply remove the pthread_cancel code from your program. It's wrong. pthread_cancel is for cancelling an in-progress thread, and has very tricky requirements for using it safely without causing resource leaks. It's not useful for threads which exit on their own.